JAMES YEAGER

File: 1461095208688.jpg (404KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 640x960px

States haven't had the right to override constitutional amendments since the Civil War.

Forcing states to follow the 2A is completely within the current case law of the constitution.

>>34820018
>National carry as basic law and not an amendment to the B.O.R - is the death knell of states rights ability to make their own laws

I don't see how this comes from a national concealed carry law

>>34820018
The right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

How fucking hard is that to understand?

End yourself.

>>34820018
Your shits all retarded and you talk like a...fag

>>34820018
>it's okay for states to infringe on the supreme law of the land
Kill yourself

File: 1491319206149.png (73KB, 904x418px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 904x418px

>>34820018
Why is he so retarded?

Also, isn't James Yeager the guy who said he thinks you shouldn't carry if you aren't military or police trained?

Exactly! If states want to limit freedom of speech too they have the right to do so and still be considered part of the United States of America.
Fucking idiot.

>>34820099


You're late for class son.

>>34820157
This was literally (half) of OP's point. Freedom of Speech is a constitutional amendment.
You're fucking dumb

>>34820099


Its been infringed - whatcha gonna do about it.
yep.nothin

>>34820018
He's right. It's always hilarious to see LAfags crying because they can't have real ARs.

Move out if you value your freedom, otherwise stay in the cuckshed and work your shitty 9-5 degenerate office job.

>>34820204
Except that Yeager is arguing that the federal government making states follow the constitution is bad.

>>34820204
>Thinks everyone responds to OP and not the content he posted
Found the idiot.

>>34820018
States have the power to govern themselves in addition to the Constitution, not in spite of it. State should not be able to overrule national. If so, why not just make it 50 different countries?

>>34820018
>>34820085
>>34820130
>>34820157
>>34820221
Fuck the Constitution. I'd take that old piece of paper and use it as kindling for my 4th of July BBQ. Our national identity should not be invested in a form of government, especially a form of government which has been so disastrous for our people. Remember that the Constitution was (rightly) seen as an anti-freedom document at the time it was adopted. The anti-Federalist party was right. It's time we dismantled the Constitution and found a better way to protect our rights, one that doesn't leave us at the mercy of kritarchs. Remember that "fighting in court" is just a nice sounding way of saying "begging for what's rightfully yours." What kind of man begs to keep his own birthright? Our fathers should be ashamed of us.

File: 544[1].png (220KB, 373x327px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 373x327px

>>34820311

>>34820349
>implying he's wrong

The document has been used against us.

File: dfe.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>34820018
Why couldn't it work like the driver's license? It doesn't have to be a federal license.

File: qt2.png (677KB, 480x679px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 480x679px

>implying gun control is constitutional
>implying states have rights to take away our rights
>implying the 10th amendment applies here

>>34820311
Faggot. Freedumb was a mistake, we should go back to a monarchy.

>>34820145
he's the same bitch that got his conceal permit revoked for threatening to shoot people, yes.

wouldn't this bill (HR 38) allow people who are unable to get concealed carry permits in their own state, to be able to get out-of-state CCW permits from states that allow such things (we've all seen those booths at gun shows).

Thereby in practical application, gutting any individual state's ability to uphold it's own standards of concealed carry permit issuance?

Seems like an underhanded tactic to essentially invalidate restricted states CCW "bans".

Not saying I'm for or against (I'm a CAfag so I'm essentially for, to my own self benefit) but isn't that essentially what this means?

>>34821623
yes he looks like Buck Angel, yes he acts like a self rightous douche who can't take any criticism, and yes he's said some stupid shit before before.

But a lot of his videos are well informed and interesting/agreeable.

>>34823011

>implying the Yeager hate train watches his free content

90% of the people who talk about him on here are just hating on him to hide their own insecurities. The guy isn't perfect, but he provides hours of high quality content for free, which he doesn't have to. He also helps out students if they miss gear or have difficulties coming to a class. One time he drove a fuckton of miles just to pick up a student who had an unforeseen problem and couldn't come on time. Depending on whether you piss him off or not he can either be extremely friendly or an extreme dick. Then again, adults should know how not to piss someone off and even if someone is a dick not get triggered.

>>34821568
>implying we didn't have rights under monarchy

>>34820018
>sorry guys lifeboats full

Wow what a giant turbocuck human-tapout-shirt faggot

>hurrr I think the authority of this arbitrary government over this arbitrary government matters more than the rights of the people living in either one

>>34823093
He's against states being forced to follow the second amendment

I don't care about the positives, he's using his influence to fight against something good for stupid reasons. Defending his awful mistakes because he has done good in the past is stupid.

>>34823485
He's a pro-state libertarian. he believes in state- self-determinism.

This is not a controversial position by any stretch. Many people are against federal preemption at any level. Even if that preemption just happens to be pro-2A.

At least he's being consistent instead of only adhering to values when they serve him and abandoning those values when they don't.

>>34820018
State's rights? States do not have the authority to subvert the constitution.

>>34823485
>fight against something good for stupid reasons.

>state rights
>reduced federal authority and preemption
>consistent application of libertarian principals
>stupid reasons

Sounds like you are the stupid one here anon.

>>34823527
Until a judgement has been made in a higher court, "subvert the constitution" is a baseless accusation with no legal application. Your personal interpretation of the constitution and your opinion of a states interpretation of the constitution has no legal bearing.

If a law is unconstitutional it can and should be brought before a higher court up to and including SCOTUS to make a ruling on it's legality.

Your special snowflake safe space feelings on laws mean nothing. Your keyboard judgments on states ignoring the constitution are likewise meaningless. If you believe your rights are being infringed by the state you are free to take it up with them in court.

Welcome to the American system. No one cares if you don't like it.

File: AdT_woke.jpg (197KB, 1600x1024px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1600x1024px

>>34820311
Fuck off. The Founder's vision of government was great. It was only after we created universal suffrage that things went to shit.

We're a republic, not a democracy.

>>34820018
States rights were never intended to supersede the bill of rights afforded to all citizens. However, current law being what it is, the bill of rights may as well not exist.

>>34823564
'right to keep and BEAR arms"
>YOU CAN ONLY bEAR ARMS IN YOUR OWN HOME
> not subverting the constitution

>>34823616
>It was only after we created universal suffrage that things went to shit.
"Largesse from the coffers" was literally one of the founding principles of the country. The revolutionary soldiers kept their arms to make sure they got their pay from congress.

>>34823654
see:
>>34823564
>Your special snowflake safe space feelings on laws mean nothing. Your keyboard judgments on states ignoring the constitution are likewise meaningless.

>>34823656
Employment by the states is different than bread and circus my friend.

>>34823564

>someone else has to decide what my rights mean

No. Just no. The BOR is very clear in its wording. You have the right to keep and bear arms and that should not be infringed. End of discussion.

>>34823685
>>someone else has to decide what my rights mean
This is true if you want that meaning to have any legal merit. The judicial system is the only entity that can define the legal merit of a law based on the BOR. Your *feelings* on the subject are legally meaningless.

>No. Just no. The BOR is very clear in its wording.
Clearly this is a matter of opinion proven by over two centuries of judgements and counter-judgements on the issue going one way or the other.

>You have the right to keep and bear arms and that should not be infringed. End of discussion.
What exactly this means and whether a states individual laws legally infringe on this are not subject to your opinion and feelings on the matter. You are of no authority to make such legal judgement. You can believe it to be true for yourself and do whatever you want but legally you are putting yourself at risk of committing a crime and being subject to all the ramifications.

If you believe your rights are being violated, you have the right to take the offending party to court and have a legal judgement handed down.

Jim Bob in the woods cannot legally decide what the constitution means to him, do whatever he pleases, and not expect to be subject to the laws in effect pertaining to his actions.

This is the entire reason we have a judicial system anon. Read a book.

>>34823738
>This is true if you want that meaning to have any legal merit. The judicial system is the only entity that can define the legal merit of a law based on the BOR. Your *feelings* on the subject are legally meaningless.

It is not a statement of emotion to say: your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We can identify a fuckton of laws and regulations that without a doubt work against this principle ("cop killer teflon ammo", "pistol grips", "10 round mags", "full auto ban", etc. etc.).

>Clearly this is a matter of opinion proven by over two centuries of judgements and counter-judgements on the issue going one way or the other.

No. Up until the recent years the US legal system was very in favor of the original meaning. Whatever anti-gun legislation found its way into existence was based in police incompetence and corruption. Check Reid Henrichs video on the history of gun control. A great many lawyers and judges over the past two centuries decided absolutely in favor of the 2nd amendment and stressed its very clear meaning.

It is YOU who is trying to read some vagueness into the BOR that isn't there. You are an anti-gun liberal activist hiding behind a mask.

why can the states restrict the people's right to own arms, but no their right to vote

>>34823810
>It is not a statement of emotion to say: your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It is not. But the underlying meaning means different things to different people.

>We can identify a fuckton of laws and regulations that without a doubt work against this principle ("cop killer teflon ammo", "pistol grips", "10 round mags", "full auto ban", etc. etc.).
And all of those assertions would be a matter of your opinion, with no legal merit, and opposed by other people's interpretations of the above quoted statement.

Basically your argument boils down to "I'm right because I say I'm right and laws should be enforced based on how I feel about things.
That's not how it works.

>It is YOU who is trying to read some vagueness into the BOR that isn't there.
Not me anon. I feel the BOR has a very distinct meaning. but my *feelings* and opinions just like your *feelings* and opinions, hold no legal merit.

>You are an anti-gun liberal activist hiding behind a mask.
cute assertion retard. I an very pro gun. I also happen to know how the american legal and judicial system works. Things are not legally so just because some nobody on the internet says or *feels* they are so. Like it or not, this is the way it is.

The legal merit of a law, or a feeling, or an opinion, is not valid unless ruled upon by a court of sufficient authority.

This is how the American system works. just because it hurts your *feelings* and you don't like it, doesn't make it untrue.

You can subjectively believe the constitution means, or a law is whatever you would like. This has no LEGAL merit whatsoever.

>>34823810
Do you really think there is only one interpretation to the BOR? Really? This is false on it;s face given there is so much disagreement about the extent of rights protected within.
There are clearly multiple interpretations. And fundamentally your interpretation is no more or less valid than anyone else's. And many people hold a different interpretation than you.

File: Fzf8eBR.gif (2MB, 336x252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 336x252px

>>34823011
His school is a roaring success of good information and safety as well. I understand he's adding defensive driving to the curriculum.

>>34823871

>It is not. But the underlying meaning means different things to different people.

No. It means one thing: Your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It means exactly that. Cease your Jewry. It means no one should limit your right to keep and bear arms. If you want to impose limits on heavy weaponry like tanks, RPGs, mines, etc. do so via reasonable laws in the commercial sector, aka what can be sold and what permits are required for dangerous components, but don't slap fucking 10 round limits on magazines.

>And all of those assertions would be a matter of your opinion, with no legal merit, and opposed by other people's interpretations of the above quoted statement.

Bullshit. The law is there for everyone. It does not work because lawyers etc. apply it. The BOR ACKNOWLEDGES the natural right of every person, it does not create it from thin air. You have a warped sense of what the BOR actually means.

>Basically your argument boils down to "I'm right because I say I'm right and laws should be enforced based on how I feel about things.

Bullshit again. My argument boils down to: your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Does a law or regulation infringe on your right to keep and bear arms? Does it limit it in any way? Does it prohibit you from buying, owning or carrying a certain firearm? Yes? Then it is in contradiction to the 2nd amendment and must be abolished.

>but my *feelings* and opinions just like your *feelings* and opinions, hold no legal merit.

You little cuck literally pledge that your little mind is incapable of understanding the clear intent and scope of the BOR, thus someone else must make decisions for you. And you assume at the same time that everyone else is too stupid as well, accusing them of going off emotions rather than reason.

>Things are not legally so just because some nobody on the internet says or *feels* they are so.

The rebellion against the British was illegal too. Bow to your masters.

File: 1492394228050.jpg (57KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x375px

States don't have the right to regulate the 2nd amendment anymore than they have the right to regulate the 1st. The only correct option is universal constitutional carry - if you disagree with this you're a moron.

>>34820018
That intro more Molon Labe than King Leonidas.

>>34823969
>No. It means one thing: Your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Another opinion with no legal merit.

>Bullshit. The law is there for everyone.
And any law, just like the constitution, is subject to interpretation and opinion. this is the entire reason for the legal system and the legal profession. To argue laws, compliance or lack of compliance with those laws, and the legality of those laws according to preemptive laws like the BOR.

It's like you simply and fundamentally do not understand what the judicial system is or what it does? How can this be?

>It means no one should limit your right to keep and bear arms.
Even Scalia, one of the most pro-2A SCOTUS judges in recent memeory disagrees with you from the grave.

>If you want to impose limits on heavy weaponry like tanks, RPGs, mines, etc. do so via reasonable laws in the commercial sector, aka what can be sold and what permits are required for dangerous components, but don't slap fucking 10 round limits on magazines.
Another opinion of yours with no legal merit. Someone might argue that you are advocating for an unconstitutional restriction on their 2A rights with this statement.

>Bullshit. The law is there for everyone. It does not work because lawyers etc. apply it.
Laws are applied and interpreted by judges, juries,and lawyers. Even ones many relieve to be unconstitutional.
The problem is, and what you are not understanding is a law is not legally unconstitutional until it is proven and ruled to be so. Until that point it is enforced and legally valid.

You can think, say, or *feel* a law is unconstitutional all you want. This has no legal merit or meaning until you prove it and a court of sufficient authority rules it to be so.
I don't see why you are having so hard a time understanding this.

(cont.)

File: 7470cec3b62fe6f786acd84ab2f450cd2fe6ea8cbd1b7ef030a1f135b06f55d3.jpg (111KB, 914x600px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 914x600px

To end this retarded debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKMnf8ojzq0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzfQF11W3vE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gixjzzo-rt8

File: 1468470311991.gif (2MB, 390x277px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 390x277px

>>34823964

>>34824066
see
>>34824070

File: 1476331994383.jpg (91KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1000x1000px

>>34824066
>Even Scalia, one of the most pro-2A SCOTUS judges in recent memeory disagrees with you from the grave.


I don't give a fuck what some dead faggot appointment by a president says.

>>34823969
>>34824066
(cont.)
>My argument boils down to: your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This is not an argument. This is you reiterating a statement that we have already established has multiple meanings and interpretations from many people. You claiming your interpretation is the right one is meaningless and doesn't make it so.

>Does a law or regulation infringe on your right to keep and bear arms?
I believe many laws and regulations infringe on my 2A rights. that doesn't mean my feelings and opinion have any legal merit without a judicial review and judgement in my favor.

>Then it is in contradiction to the 2nd amendment and must be abolished.
Once again, this is your opinion. The extent of the infringement is a matter of your opinion, what you think is reasonable infringement, like those you outlined above regarding heavy weaponry, are a matter of your opinion. None of this has any legal merit or authority whatsoever.

>You little cuck literally pledge that your little mind is incapable of understanding the clear intent and scope of the BOR
Your tiny abby mind can't udnerstand that simply because you interpret the BOR one way, doesn't mean it is a universal truth.
You don't seem to understand that many people interpret it differently than you and their opinion is just as valid as yours. Where the law applies is not up to anyone's opinion other than those seated at a court of sufficient authority.

>thus someone else must make decisions for you.
Your opinions and *feelings* do not legally define the application of law. This is a fact. I'm sorry it buttblasts you so.

>The rebellion against the British was illegal too.
Now you're getting it.
Just because something is legal or not doesn't make it right for everyone. What is right or wrong is a subjective opinion.

Your feelings do not define the validity or merit of law. Don't believe me? Go chop the barrel of a shotgun down to 16" and show it to a police officer

>>34824119
>I don't give a fuck what some dead faggot appointment by a president says.

You should, because SCOTUS rulings on your rights are the only thing that matters when it comes to the application and constitutionality of law.

Go ahead and chop that shotgun to 16" without the proper paperwork. Then tell the police you can do it because of your opinion on what your protected rights are. Post the video for lulz.

File: lightning_link.png (3MB, 1636x1491px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1636x1491px

>>34824141
>Go ahead and chop that shotgun to 16" without the proper paperwork. Then tell the police you can do it because of your opinion on what your protected rights are. Post the video for lulz.

Not an argument - the government is ran by traitors and it should have been violently overthrow decades ago.

>>34824176
So you're one of those edgelords then.

People like you usually either grow out of this angsy edgelord stage, or they actually practice some of the retarded shit the preach and end up in federal assrape prison for 15 years.

Or they end up dead in a plywood shanty town surrounded by likeminded retard.

Good luck to you whatever the case

File: 1472540956617.webm (399KB, 466x260px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 466x260px

>>34824070

>>34820018

Yeager is a traitor and ha shit all over the 2nd Amendment.

Why do people still have such a high opinion of him?

>>34824284
>Yeager is a traitor and ha shit all over the 2nd Amendment.
Explain

>>34820018
I'm really annoyed about this issue. Utah had a program bringing most the states together on this, and that's pretty much kill. Now a lot of states are only working with states that have reciprocal rights. You can sit around screaming about states rights but it drags backs all the others. You can't argue too much with the "fucking move argument" because well yeah duh. It's not like you get to choose where you live or if you win the economic lottery to be able to move somewhere else.

Can someone address this please:
>>34822992

File: Meem.jpg (96KB, 355x571px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 355x571px

>>34820311
>Fuck the Constitution.
Didn't even read the rest of that book you wrote. Yiff muslims in hell, commie scum.

>>34820145
That's a really good suggestion. The only problem with that is failures need to be more documented then people that pass. People that fail training for that thing should be under surveillance for a reasonable amount of time.